Today’s world seems to operate on the functions of some of the most advanced technology our society can offer. We can perform countless tasks with the touch of a button or the tap of a screen. Anything from purchasing a new video game to arming the security system of your house can be done instantly from the convenience of your mobile device. This rapid advance in technological capabilities has defined the modern age and how far we have come as a collective world society. However, even though we have made great strides in technological advances, we still suffer from the most basic of dilemmas faced by our ancestors: poverty, famine, and war. War in particular benefits from these advancements in technology. As we continue to find new ways to perform tasks, we also find new ways to subdue and destroy or enemies. One such weapon developed from the advances of modern technology is the UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) or drone. The drone is a remotely piloted aircraft that is primarily used for surveillance and covert airstrikes. Currently very few countries possess UAVs, but of these the USA boasts the largest and most active fleet. While the drone is a useful asset, it does not come without its drawbacks. With the addition of the drone to the US military arsenal, the use of pilots has become considerably lessened. This decrease in use of manned aircraft has led many people and some officials in the military to believe that the age of the pilot is coming to a close and that the use of UAVs is the future for all aerial military operations. However, the pilot has many advantages and uses that the drone doesn’t have on the battlefield, such as being able to adapt to the changes on the battlefield with speed and efficiency. The pilot and the drone are different and perform different roles for the military and therefore should work in conjunction to get the best possible results from operations in both the war on terror and future conventional wars.
The drone features many functions that make it an invaluable asset on today’s battlefield. According to airforce.com, the drone and its operators “assist in mission planning, including close air support, interdiction, armed reconnaissance, combat search and rescue and limited forward air control” (“Sensor Operator”). The drone is not directly manned by a pilot, so there is no risk of human casualty. Because of this, the drone has the “ability to loiter for long periods” (Campell 14). According to Colonel Todd Smith in an interview, a drone can perform these operations for “about 20 to 24 hours” (Smith) before needing to refuel. Col. Smith also went on to say that drones are relatively inexpensive compared to the fighter aircraft used by pilots and that drones are much harder to detect by radar and human senses. There is also an optimistic future for the drone. Because it is being used so extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan, the drone has proven to be a key weapon in the fight against major terrorist groups. This coupled with the reality that the US isn’t currently engaged in any conventional wars, means that the expansion of the drone fleet is a real possibility that the US military is considering. But if the US were to engage in conventional war, whether invading or being invaded, the UAV would “provide awareness and cueing of operational-level enemy maneuvers” (Barnett, 54) allowing US forces to use this information to fight the enemy with the proper tactics and equipment that the situation requires. Clearly the drone boasts a wide are of uses for the demands of the war that the US is currently fighting, all while keeping the cost and human risk low. However, while the drone has its share of uses, it is not without its share of faults.
The drone, while extremely valuable in current military operations, is not perfect and is often limited by its capabilities. Drones operate on command based system where the operator gives the drone a command, such as move to grid location G5, and the action is carried out by the drone momentarily. This “semi-autonomy” (Smith) system has a latency delay or lag. This lag is the result of operating a drone remotely and even more so from a location across the globe. According to Col. Smith, there have been instances during the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan where this latency issue has resulted in unwanted outcomes, such as civilian casualties. Amitai Etzioni states that “some hold that the number of civilians killed amounts to an overwhelming majority of all those killed” (Etzioni 2). However lag is not the only possible origin of civilian casualties in these operations. The drone operators often spend hours regulating and directing the drone, resulting in boredom. This boredom could lead to catastrophic outcomes for the people under the area of effect of the drone’s weaponry as the operators slowly “find it hard[er] to distinguish between…killing…human beings and targeting mere pixels on a screen” (Cole 23). In addition, because the drone operators are not actually on the battlefield, they have a limited view of the situation. While drones are equipped with several cameras to monitor the surrounding areas, these cameras are limited to a two-dimensional view which can cause alterations to the reality of the terrain or situation. The fact that the operators are not there, coupled with the previously mentioned latency issues means that a drone and its operators cannot quickly respond to a change in the battlefield operations or its environment. This is extremely important, because a conventional battlefield is constantly changing and the drone would most likely have a hard time keeping up. In addition to this, “unmanned aircraft have flown only in uncontested airspace” (Chopra) and have proven they cannot defend against aerial attack; therefore if a fighter aircraft or anti-air weaponry was used again the drone, it would most likely be shot down. Finally, a fighter aircraft can hold a bigger payload of munitions to use for close air support than a drone, meaning that while the drone can linger longer, it will not be able to continue to aid an offensive without leaving the battlefield multiple times to rearm. These drawbacks of drones show that while capable and extremely useful for the operations performed in the war on terror, the drone is only useful for surveillance when thrown into the rigors and realities of conventional warfare.
In the case of conventional warfare, the manned aircraft should be the tool of choice for the US military. While drones can survey an area or perform precision airstrikes, they cannot perform mid-air refueling for other aircraft, large bombing missions, or any air-to-air combat. All of these missions must be carried out by human pilots. Until drones become more technologically advanced, it is best that it stays this way in order to avoid unnecessary risk to anyone or anything affected by these missions. For example, the latency delay for drones could result in disastrous outcomes should a mistake be made while performing a bombing mission of similar scale to that of a manned bomber’s. The pilot is trained for more than a year and is constantly honing his skills through training exercises and live missions in conflict zones allowing him to be “an infinitely more adaptable platform and are irreplaceable when considering the high-threat environments of future wars” (Malandrino and Mclean). This results in the pilot to continually becoming sharper and more deadly as he gains more experience and better understands how to use his aircraft and its weapons to gain the upper hand on the battlefield. The aircraft fighter pilots use are far faster, more maneuverable, and can carry more weaponry than a drone. This allows the fighter pilot to have the flexibility of responding to additional ground targets or aerial threats that may force him to engage in air-to-air combat. Because of his flexibility and ability to react to the changing battlefield the fighter pilot provides a much more versatile weapon that can be deployed to any airspace in the world with a high chance of mission accomplishment, while the drone is limited to airspace that is uncontested due to its lack of air-to-air defense. Although the US is not currently engaged in a conventional war, it is important that the US maintains a well-trained fleet of fighter pilots should their need someday arise. Without pilots at the ready, the US could find itself struggling to support its ground operations or worse, vulnerable to aerial attack from foreign nations who do keep a current fighter pilot fleet.
However, like the drone, the fighter pilot is not without his drawbacks. Firstly, there is the obvious risk of putting a human life in danger, but one must remember that this pilot has voluntarily offer to do this job and is aware of the risks that his job entails. While this may sound inconsiderate from certain stand points, the pilot knows that this is his job and is proud to perform it. The drone also has the advantage of operation time. A pilot can operate for “about 10-12 hours” (Smith) at a time so that the pilot may rearm, refuel, and rest. Utilizing pilots is also a very expensive strategy. It costs “anywhere from 4 to 5 million dollars” to train a pilot, then there is the matter of the expenses of their aircraft which amount to several million dollars and added to that is the cost of the fuel they consume. The fighter pilot is also limited in his flying abilities due to GLOC or gravity induced loss of consciousness. GLOC is the result of performing a high-G maneuver for too long. If the pilot GLOCs, there is the possibility that he will remain unconscious for too long for him to regain control of the aircraft before he crashes or is destroyed by the enemy. However, the drone has not yet developed the ability to perform in air-to-air combat, where these types of maneuvers would be utilized, so this is a risk that must be taken by pilots regardless of the existence of drones. Another drawback of the fighter pilot is that their aircraft are easily detected. While the drone operates with a propeller and has a small signature, fighter aircraft are generally large and have loud jet engines that alert nearby enemies for miles around. Although the US has aircraft with stealth capabilities, they still show a signature on radar, it just appears smaller. But the stealth for fighter aircraft is not meant for long term use, it is generally meant to gain the advantage of surprise before an attack, while the drone uses its stealth to remain hidden while it carries out its mission. The drawbacks of the fighter pilot and his aircraft show that while the fighter pilot is still needed for military readiness and national defense, there are missions that the fighter pilot once did that the drone can now do better and with less risk.
Both the drone and the fighter pilot have their uses and their drawbacks, but it is because of this that they should not be pitted against one another, but rather used together. The drone and the pilot don’t oppose each other, rather they complement one another. The fighter pilot should be used as the first line of defense for the airspace of the nation and initial strike force when the military takes action against a foreign enemy. The drone should then be responsible for maintaining intelligence of the current situation in the area of operations through surveillance and reconnaissance. This operating procedure ensures not only mission accomplishment, but the lowest possible risk to achieve it with speed, effectiveness, and efficiency. Even as the drone continues to be researched and developed, it will never fully replace the fighter pilot. The fighter pilot will always be needed to conduct close air support for ground troops and to gain aerial supremacy so that operations can be conducted free of threat from aerial attack and the drone has now too earned a spot in military operating procedure where it will be used for some time to gather intelligence about enemy troop movements and enemy high value target locations. The fighter pilot and the drone are not rivals competing for funding and recognition, but rather tools that should be used in conjunction to achieve the best possible route to mission accomplishment.
Works Cited
Barnett, Jeffery R. “Attack Enemy Invasion/Occupation Forces.” Future War an Assessment of Aerospace Campaigns in 2010. Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.: Air UP, 1997. 53-58. Print.
Campell, Lloyd. “The Debate: Manned vs Unmanned.” Frontline Defence 8.2 (2011): 14-15. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.
“Careers.” SENSOR OPERATOR. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2015. <http://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/sensor-operator/>.
Chopra, Anil. “Manned vs Unmanned.” SP’s Aviation (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.
Cole, Chris. “Rise Of The Drones.” New Internationalist 448 (2011): 22-23. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.
Etzioni, Amitai. “The Great Drone Debate.” Military Review 93.2 (2013): 2-13. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.
Malandrino, Greg, and Jeff MClean. “The Unmanned Wingman.” Foreign Policy (2013): n. pag. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.
Smith, Todd D. Personal interview. 12 Mar. 2015.